Local officials are unsure as to whether the cross burning had any affiliation with the United High's football loss.Nice comment in the thread, though: 1867 called. They want these douches back.
Recently in Racism Category
The Republican/conservative brightness before the burn out I keep thinking is happening, only gets brighter and brighter, and not in a good way. As the Birthers, Tea baggers, and generally just mad at the world types, descend upon the town hall meetings, I realize that my imagining of their behavior falls quantitatively short of their capabilities.
Then, Ian had this to say:
They took the lesson of the Clinton administration to be "don't enflame (sic) the fanatics on the right--avoid social issues, and don't slash the military". They were, of course, wrong: the radical right (and there is hardly a non-radical right left) will oppose Obama no matter what he does and if Obama is unwilling to use to the full might of the administrative apparatus against them, they will simply take advantage of his weakness to escalate. Tactics which are seen to work, will not be abandoned, to the contrary, they will be used more and more.don't enflame (sic) the fanatics on the right--avoid social issues
Suddenly, my imagination made a quantum jump that pictured a radical increase in the use of deadly force, with a resultant increase in dead minorities (including gay, lesbian, and transgenders).
Now, I am not about to believe one way or another that President Obama understood this possible scenario. Still, to pick health care as his first major policy push might have been for other reasons besides the time was right. Regardless of whether he recognized it was a policy that could result in the least amount of insanity and violence, in the end, it is what happened.
Ask yourself this; had President Obama picked an African American jurist for the Supreme Court, just what kind of push back do you think would have happened? Unlike health care, an African American nominee to the Supreme Court is a racial element that would have inflamed the radical right even more then the current push for health reform. I don't know about you, but my imagination in this situation includes some serious killings, maybe even a lynching or three.
What? You think that's too far? If there are calls by influential leaders of the radical right for people to bring guns to town hall meetings, my suggestion of lynchings had President Obama attempted to place an African American on the Supreme Court is going to far? Considering how easy it is for the radical right followers to kill gays, lesbians, and transgenders during less politically decisive times, any push to end DADT, or otherwise legislate equal rights for sexual orientation, would suddenly result in a decrease of killings? We are talking about a section of the electorate that thinks it is funny to print out liberal hunting licenses.
So, for whatever reason, President Obama went the path of least resistance. But, Ian is right. No matter what policy the President pursues, the radical right will fight back. And they will use any action they perceive to have already been effective. If the push for health reform does stall, and no bill is forthcoming this year, I too believe the President is dead in the water. He will achieve no further legislative goals. And even if he does pass health care reform, I still believe he's dead in the water, simply because the radical right, already inflamed and instilled with an Armageddon mindset, will simply believe the end is nigh and make a homicidal/suicidal push. They are going to take as many with them as possible.
In my opinion, any further legislative attempts by the President and violence is assured. It is already occurring. If President Obama manages to shove a version of health reform through congress, he's going to be faced with one angry, pissed off radical right. He will pretty much be unable to overcome any further resistance because civil unrest is only going to continue. Chances are, it will take up most of his administration's attention.
So, once he's done with as much of the legislative work he can realistically achieve, I suggest he turn his attention to judicial/legal house cleaning. Unleash the Justice Department and force a searching and fearless constitutional inventory of our government. There is a world of hurt in it, with much latent corruption and incompetence set to cause further decades of pain and suffering, thereby weakening our country. If he truly wants to be seen as an agent of change, the more important task he faces is exposure of the past administration's eight years of malfeasance and criminality. Hell, cleaning up the last 30 years of modern conservative governance is one damn fine legacy, if you ask me.
Now, I do not believe President Obama wants that for a legacy. But most people do not get to choose their destiny, it chooses them.
(TPM) According to Hill reporter Alexander Bolton, "This has prompted some Republicans to muse privately about whether Sotomayor is suggesting that distinctive Puerto Rican cuisine such as patitas de cerdo con garbanzo -- pigs' tongue and ears -- would somehow, in some small way influence her verdicts from the bench."Curt Levey, the executive director of the Committee for Justice, a conservative-leaning advocacy group, said he wasn't certain whether Sotomayor had claimed her palate would color her view of legal facts but he said that President Obama's Supreme Court nominee clearly touts her subjective approach to the law.
Slightly gobsmacked, I called Bolton earlier today and asked him whether this was for real--whether any conservatives were genuinely raising this issue. He confirmed, saying, "a source I spoke to said people were discussing that her [speech] had brought attention...she intimates that what she eats somehow helps her decide cases better."
Bolton said the source was drawing, "a deductive link," between Sotomayor's thoughts on Puerto Rican food and her other statements. And I guess the chain goes something like this: 1). Sotomayor implied that her Latina identity informs her jurisprudence, 2). She also implied that Puerto Rican cuisine is a crucial part of her Latina identity, 3). Ergo, her gastronomical proclivities will be a non-negligible factor for her when she's considering cases before the Supreme Court.
Got it? Good. This is the conservative opposition to Sotomayor.
See, what's nice about other blogs is that I don't have to wallow through an entire article of standard batshit crazy just to get to this phenomenally stupid conservative talking point. In this particular case, I was able to cull the above piece of "wtf" from TPM by way of Mustang Bobby. The end result, I don't have to wipe up the green discharge of my brain leaking out of my ears.
Oh, and what is it about the people with the last name of Bolton? Are they all naturally insane, or is it a curse that comes with the name?
NEW YORK (CNN) -- A day after publishing a cartoon that drew fire from critics who said it evoked historically racist images, the New York Post apologized in a statement on its Web site -- even as it defended its action and blasted some detractors.This is what we call in the CD biz a "Ya But" answer. In other words; yes you're right, but no you're wrong. So, basically, everyone is both right and wrong in the criticism of the cartoon.
The Post said the cartoon was meant to mock what it called an "ineptly written" stimulus bill."But it has been taken as something else -- as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism," reads the statement. "This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize."
But the statement immediately swerves to fire back at some of the image's critics.Nice going on covering all bases! Yes. Very impressive.
"However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past -- and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback," the statement says. "To them, no apology is due. Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon -- even as the opportunists seek to make it something else."
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a blunt assessment of race relations in the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder Wednesday called the American people "essentially a nation of cowards" in failing to openly discuss the issue of race.You know the wing nuts are going to go, well, errr.... nuts over this.
I, on the other hand, happen to agree with Mr. Holder. We have been cowards. Oh, we can work with other races. But do you see yourself hanging out with other races after work? Even our TV shows still show a racial divide. There are TV shows for blacks. There are TV shows for whites. But there are very few TV shows that are homogenized.
When I was in the Navy, this divide was very obvious among the enlisted on medium to large ships. The blacks would gather together in one common room, while the white enlisted would gather together in another. Now, that was back in 1983. Maybe today it's different. I don't know. I just know that when it comes to actually living with other races, we've hardly even begun to eliminate fear and bias.
I rarely think of myself as a "white" person. I strictly think of myself as a person. That is, until I was the lone white person in a room full of blacks. Then I was aware I was white. Yet, when going through my training as a Chemical Dependency counselor, I was taught that many blacks see themselves as a black person, not just a person, even when they are in a room full of only other blacks.
So, yes, Mr. Holder is correct. As a nation, we've a long way to go still.
Canadian CynicAnd that's before he gets good and warmed up.
It's bad to kill a blob of cells with little to no consciousness that even the Bible says has no worth until it's been outside it's mother for a month.
But it's good to let people like Michael J. Fox suffer from Parkinson's disease.
and it's good to keep people like Christopher Reeves confined to a wheelchair.
OrcinusIt is a long post, as they usually are over at Orcinus. But it is a post of hope, change, and an indication that the Extreme Right has finally lost it's false, glossy cover.
Over the past week or two, several events have occurred that show just how radically the range of acceptable political and media discourse has changed in the past eight years.
First, the New Republic finally got the Minneapolis Historical Society to cut loose its store of old Ron Paul Reports, put them online, and thus verified -- once and for all -- our repeated contention that Ron Paul's benign good-doctor pose was hiding a noxiously hateful and racist past.
Second, Bill Press called Pat Buchanan a white supremacist to his face on national TV. Of course, this isn't news to regular Orcinus readers -- but it is a first for the mainstream media. Press just put it right out there, like it was a stone cold fact -- and Tucker and Pat sat there, and took it as a fact. Even more stunningly: Nobody called him names. He didn't get his mike cut. He wasn't asked to leave. He'll probably even get asked back. Incredible.
Third, both Max Blumenthal and Joe Conason published different but similarly damaging articles on Friday pointing out the long-standing ties between Mike Huckabee and various Reconstructionist leaders. Huck hasn't said publicly that America needs to dump the Constitution and institute biblical law in its place; but it appears that some of the most influential people who do believe this are also some of Huck's very closest friends. As Joe points out, these friendships raise serious questions about his intentions as president that the voting public deserves some straight answers to.
It's tempting to view this simply as an assertive media just doing its job -- until you reflect on the fact that this is the first election in a decade that any of these of events had the remotest chance of occurring.
Look, I never approved of the lies President Clinton told over the whole situation. Nor do I think he has honestly admitted to what happened. And there in lays the difference between Clinton and Stanek. Stanek obviously made great efforts to correct what was no doubt an inexperienced and naive officer's verbal mistake.
Also, while Clinton may have been dishonest about a private matter, Stanek has, in fact, been upfront and honest about a professional matter. He has shown integrity and honor. He has been human, made a mistake, and worked at correcting that mistake. He obviously does not deserve the title of racist.
Stanek then spent a considerable effort to mend the hurt that some said was caused by the remarks in that deposition.
During the 2006 election for Hennepin County Sheriff, Republican candidate Stanek garnered the support of many traditionally DFL voters. Insight News, one of Minneapolis' largest African American newspapers endorsed him. "We believe in redemption," publisher Al McFarlane said. "We believe that people change. We believe that people can grow and we appreciate and we applaud people who are willing to say I was wrong and I stand before you asking for forgiveness. Rich Stanek is a model for white people. He really is."
As a police officer, Stanek met repeatedly with members of the African American community to make amends for the hurtful comments of a decade ago. Al Flowers, a prominent communty activist said, "I believe he was sincere in his apology." And Stanek was backed by African-American Leadership Summit and Black Church Coalition in his campaign.
He also won by a large margin in the largest and most diverse county in Minnesota with 65 percent of the vote.
Now, should he start popping oxy's, sending his maid to empty parking lots, and generally making all sorts of ignorant, stupid comments about breeding and what not, then we can hang the title racists on the man. However, I'd say that title's already been taken by someone else.
Oh, and just because Stanek was picked to work for Giuliani's campaign does not mean he was picked by Giuliani himself. In fact, considering all the above facts, I'd lay odds Giuliani was completely out of the loop on this one. Especially when these are the type of people Giuliani personally handpicks.